Graf v. Hiser

TTbstek, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The General Assembly, by chapter 374 of the Acts of 1922, created a “special taxing district,” to be known as the Edmonston District, in Prince George’s County, subject to the approval of the qualified voters of the county residing within the limits of the district as defined in the act. It. was the general design of the statute io provide for a special tax on property in the district, to be levied by the county commissioners, and to authorize the use by a district citizens’ committee of the funds produced by the special tax, together with a proportion of the money realized from the county road tax, for sanitation, lighting, road improvement and other public purposes. The referendum section of the act provided for an election on the second Tuesday of April, 1922, to be conducted, and the result, declared, by a committee of five persons named in the act, who were required to post a notice in five public places in the district, not less than ⁴²⁰ seven days before the election, informing “the residents of said proposed district who are qualified under this act, that there will be held on said day at a certain place and between certain hours', an election to determine whether or not said residents desire to create said special taxing district.” It was provided that “'all residents of said proposed Edmonston District, of th© age of twenty-one years or upwards, who shall possess the qualifications of legally registered voters of this State, and who shall have resided in said proposed district for the space of six months next preceding the first Monday in May in each year in which they seek to vote shall be eligible to vote at such election, * * *” A notice was posted by the committee appointed in the act to the effect that an election would he held on Tuesday, .April 11, 1922, between stated hours and at a designated place, “to determine whether or not the residents of this community desire to create a special taxing district to be known as ‘The Edmonston District’ as provided for in an act passed by the Maryland General Assembly during the session of 1922, the creation of said ‘The Edmonston District’ being conditioned upon the ratification of said act by a majority of the resident taxpayers of the said district.” In thus defining the qualifications of those who would be allowed to participate in the election, the notice adopted a materially different test of eligibility from that prescribed by tbe statute.

It was the plain meaning of the notice actually posted that the franchise should be limited to resident taxpayers, while the act extended it to all who had the qualifications of “legally registered voters” and who had resided in the district for the period mentioned. It was required by the act that the notice should he addressed to the residents of the distinct who were qualified to vote under its provisions. That requirement was not observed. According to the theory, upon which the notice was prepared, resident hut unregistered taxpayers were entitled to' vote, while legally registered voters who were not taxpayers were disqualified.

The actual voting ⁴²¹ in the election was conducted upon the basis of the unwarranted qualifications which the notice had described. The failure of the election committee to give proper notice of the election, and to apply the provisions of the statute in regard to the qualifications of voters, was probably due to unfamiliarity with its precise terms, its enactment having been completed only a day before the time when the notice had to be posted. But the fact remains that, there was a serious defect in the notice which the act made a prerequisite to the election .at which the question of its ratification or rejection was to be submitted. Because there was not a substantial compliance with that essential condition precedent, and for other reasons, the present suit in equity by taxpayers of the district was instituted to the end that the organization of the district under the statute might be restrained, although the declared result of the election was in favor of the enactment.

The evidence in the ease proved the facts we have recited, and tended to show that the mistake of the committee in the preparation of the notice, and in the reception and exclusion of votes, had a. probably